This chapter examines the growth of pension assets and how contributions, investment income, and pension benefit payments have contributed. It discusses how pension assets evolve over time by examining the interaction between contributions, investment income and benefit payments at the individual and national levels. The chapter ends with a discussion on situations under which pension assets may grow, stabilise or decline.
OECD Pensions Outlook 2026
Are We Saving Enough for Retirement?
Abstract
Pension assets, assets that back future pension payments, have grown in most OECD countries and non-OECD jurisdictions since 2000.1 The OECD Pension Markets in Focus series has reported on this evolution over time.
This chapter examines the factors behind the growth of pension assets over time to understand whether this growth may continue. The chapter looks first at the evolution of pension assets in 2025 and in the last two decades. It then provides a framework for understanding how pension assets evolve over time by examining the interaction between contributions, investment income and benefit payments at the individual and national levels. The following sections then describe the evolution of those factors across different jurisdictions to assess at what stage of asset accumulation they may be. The chapter ends by discussing the potential evolution of pension assets based on possible trends in inflows and outflows.
Pension assets continued to grow in 2025, sustaining the upward trend observed since 2000. Pension assets totalled USD 78 trillion at end-2025 in the OECD area, 11.3% more than at end-2024 and between 4 and 5 times more than in the early 2000s (Figure 1.1). In the OECD, pension assets have grown faster than the economy over the last decades and exceeded the size of GDP at the end of 2024 (104.5% of GDP) and 2025 (105.6%). While pension assets have experienced short-term declines, such as in 2008 and 2022, the growth of assets always resumed afterwards. The increase in pension assets primarily comes from pension plans managed by pension providers. These assets grew from USD 15.3 trillion (or 56.7% of OECD GDP) at end-2001 to USD 70.4 trillion (or 95.7% of GDP) at end-2025. The assets of public pension reserve funds are smaller and have grown more moderately.
In USD trillion and as percentage of GDP
Note: The chart shows assets at the end of each year, from end-2001 to end-2025, based on annual data. The total amount of assets at the end of a given year is calculated based on all OECD countries and public pension reserve funds (PPRFs) for which data is available. The number of countries and PPRFs that the totals include may therefore vary over the years. Totals in USD trillion are expressed in current prices. Totals as percentage of GDP are calculated as pension assets in the OECD (expressed in USD) over the sum of the GDPs of all OECD countries, in USD.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics and other sources.
Pension assets grew in nearly all jurisdictions in 2025, declining in two OECD countries: Luxembourg (‑7.4%) due to the liquidation of an occupational pension fund, and the Netherlands (‑3.1%) due to the negative investment performance of pension funds in 2025. This trend is consistent with the long-term growth of assets in all jurisdictions that has underpinned the global growth of pension assets over the last two decades (Figure 1.2). Assets in public pension reserve funds also grew in most OECD countries in 2025 and over the long term, except in the United States. Reserves in the United States have been declining since 2021, partially offsetting the rise of assets of reserve funds elsewhere, as the United States holds the biggest public pension reserve fund.
In per cent
Note: This figure shows the nominal growth rate of assets in 2025 and the geometric average annual growth rate (expressed in local current prices) over the longest period possible (since 2001, 2005 or 2010 depending on data availability). Panel C: Data for Israel refer to the National Insurance Institute (NII) Fund, which supports the broader social security system and is used for a wide range of benefits (including old-age pensions).
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics and other sources.
Growth of pension assets has been uneven across countries. Among OECD countries, Greece and the Republic of Türkiye (hereafter “Türkiye”) have had some of the largest growth rates in 2025 and over the longer term. Both countries have relatively recent asset-backed pension systems and had low amounts of pension assets in the 2000s, resulting in higher annual growth rates than jurisdictions where asset-backed pensions were introduced earlier (e.g. Canada, Denmark, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States). High inflation has also likely played a role in some of the jurisdictions with the largest growth rates (e.g. Türkiye and Zimbabwe).
Pension assets have grown at a different pace relative to the size of the economy. Looking at assets relative to the size of the economy, measured by the GDP, enables to control for the effect of inflation. For example, pension assets have grown moderately relative to GDP and remained at low levels at end-2025 in Türkiye (3.4% of GDP), despite high growth rates in local prices. By contrast, the growth of assets was particularly strong in Denmark and Iceland among OECD countries, and in Liechtenstein and Namibia among non-OECD jurisdictions, for example (Figure 1.3). Assets in public pension reserve funds have also grown faster than GDP in most countries, especially Japan’s Government Pension Investment Fund and Korea’s National Pension Fund. By contrast, reserves in the United States declined from 10.1% of GDP at end-2001 to 7.6% of GDP at end-2025.
As a percentage of GDP
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics and other sources.
Pension assets were unevenly distributed geographically at end-2025. Most assets were held in North America (Canada and the United States), Western Europe (the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom), Australia and Japan. For example, the United States had assets worth USD 51.8 trillion (including USD 2.3 trillion in reserves for the public pension scheme), representing close to two‑thirds of all pension assets worldwide. Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland and the United States have the largest pools of assets relative to GDP. The amount of pension assets also differs within regions, with large differences across jurisdictions in Latin America, Africa and Europe (Figure 1.4).
Note: Data refer to the sum of the assets of pension providers and public pension reserve funds.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
The differences across jurisdictions are widening. Some jurisdictions still had low amounts of pension assets relative to GDP at the end of 2025 while others with already large amounts in the early 2000s continue to record strong asset growth (Figure 1.3). Some jurisdictions also have relatively significant public pension scheme reserves, exceeding the size of assets managed by pension providers, such as in Japan and Korea.
The time at which countries introduced asset-backed pension plans also explains the difference in the amount of pension assets at the end of 2025. Jurisdictions that introduced asset-backed pensions recently still have a relatively low amount of pension assets compared to jurisdictions that introduced asset-backed pensions earlier (Figure 1.5), in which pension assets have had more time to accrue. Yet, some jurisdictions that introduced asset-backed pensions around the same time had different amounts of assets at end-2025 (e.g. Germany and the United States), showing that other factors like access to a pension plan, participation, contribution rates and investment returns, are also at play in the accumulation of assets.
As a percentage of GDP
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
Understanding the growth of pension assets requires looking at the interaction between inflows and outflows at both the individual and national levels. Understanding the mechanisms behind these flows would allow assessing whether the growth in pension assets observed over the past two decades is likely to continue and under which circumstances. The analysis first explains how individuals accumulate and decumulate pension assets over their lifetime and then examines how the aggregation of pension assets across all individuals shapes the evolution at the national level. The analysis ends by analysing the inflows and outflows in public pension reserve funds.
The growth of pension assets reflects the balance between contributions, income from investments and the payment of pension benefits. At the individual level, pension assets initially grow because individuals save for retirement and earn returns on their investments. The amount accumulated is therefore influenced by factors such as contribution rates and the composition of the investment portfolio. Pension assets then decrease because individuals withdraw their savings to finance their retirement.
At the national level, pension assets evolve according to the number of people saving for retirement and the number of people withdrawing funds to finance retirement. The number of people saving for retirement depends on the coverage and uptake of asset-backed pension plans, i.e. the number of people who have access to them, participate and contribute. The number of people withdrawing funds depends on the number of retirees and on how many of them built up assets during their careers. The structure of the population, the number of years since the asset-backed pension system was introduced and reforms affecting participation, contributions, investment and benefit payments also influence the evolution of aggregate pension assets.
1.2.1. How individuals accumulate and decumulate pension assets
Individuals accumulate assets over time by contributing from their income into asset-backed pension plans. Providers of those plans invest these contributions which over time earn a return net of fees. Naturally, there are periods in which the assets earn a negative return (e.g. during the 2008 financial crisis). Contributions and net returns accumulate during the individual’s career. At retirement, pension benefit payments begin, which eventually lead to decumulation of previously accumulated assets (Figure 1.6 Panel A).2
Note: This figure illustrates how pension assets may evolve in a defined contribution plan over the working life and retirement of an individual, and the role that contributions, investment income, fees and benefit payments play in the evolution of assets. Panel A shows the annual contributions, investment income, fees and benefit payments on the left-hand side (inflows and outflows), and the total amount of assets (stock) on the right-hand side. Inflows are shown as positive values while outflows are shown as negative values. Panel B shows the split of cumulative inflows to the pension plan during the accumulation phase between contributions and investment income. The results depend on the assumptions.
The growth of assets may not be linear. Individuals may pause and resume contributions, face investment losses due to downturns in financial markets, or access their savings if the legislation or plan rules allow for this. Assets could also fall abruptly at retirement in the case of a single lump-sum payment.
Investment income plays a greater role over time as the amount of assets earning a return grows. At one point, depending on the assumptions, investment income could play a greater role than contributions in the composition of pension assets (Figure 1.6 Panel B). The growing role of investment income in pension assets comes from the effect of compound interest. Compound interest is the result of earning an interest on both contributions and past interests earned (Batsman, 2026[1]; Hartmann, n.d.[2]). The effect of compound interest continues even when contributions stop, as earlier contributions continue to get an investment income if assets stay in the plan.3 During the decumulation phase, pension assets decline to the extent that pension benefit payments exceed the investment income earned on the remaining assets.
1.2.2. Evolution of pension assets at the national level
The accumulation of pension assets at the national level depends on multiple parameters, including the maturity of the asset-backed pension system and the population structure. When asset-backed pensions have been in place for a long time and are fully mature (i.e. all individuals have accumulated assets during their entire career under the same plan rules), the flows in and out of the plans may remain constant under a constant population structure, leading to a stable level of pension assets (Figure 1.7, Panel A).4, 5
Note: This figure illustrates how pension assets may evolve at the national level following the introduction of a DC plan, and the role that contributions, investment income, benefits and fees play in the evolution of assets. This illustration is based on several assumptions. Panel A shows the aggregate annual inflows (contributions and investment income), outflows (benefits and fees) (on the left-hand side) and accumulated assets as a percentage of GDP (on the right-hand side) at the national level from the introduction of the DC plan. Panel B shows the split of total cumulative inflows from the introduction of the DC plan between contributions and investment income.
Over time, investment income plays a growing role in the financing of asset-backed pensions at the national and individual level. Contributions are the main source of inflows in the first years following the introduction of a pension plan. Investing contributions in capital markets generates investment income, which grows over time as it benefits from the effect of compound interest (Figure 1.7, Panel B).
The volume of flows in and out of the plans determines both the pace at which pension assets accumulate and the level of pension assets. For example, a new pension plan covering only part of the population would generate lower contribution levels and slower growth in pension assets than a plan available to all. Higher contribution levels, higher investment income resulting from higher returns, or lower fees lead to larger inflows, resulting in faster growth in pension assets and higher levels of pension assets (Figure 1.8, Panel A). Individuals may pay voluntary contributions above mandatory or minimum contribution levels, which can accelerate asset accumulation and increase future retirement benefits, as Chapter 2 analyses further. Investment income contributes more to the growth of pension assets when investment returns are higher, fees are lower or the investment horizon is longer (Figure 1.8, Panel B). The growth of pension assets flattens as a growing number of retirees receive benefit payments based on a full contribution period (Figure 1.8, Panel A). The type of benefit payments also influences total pension assets, with lump sum payments reducing total pension assets more than other payout options where assets remain invested during the decumulation phase such as programmed withdrawals.
Note: Numbers are illustrative and do not represent the case of any specific country. The baseline is the same as in Figure 1.7. The figure shows the results of different sensitivity analyses (SA), changing one assumption at a time compared to the baseline: a gradual enrolment of the working-age population (with only new labour market entrants at age 22 joining the plan when it is phased in) instead of all workers (SA 1), contribution levels 50% higher (because of a contribution rate 50% higher) than in the baseline (SA 2), a higher nominal investment rate of return (assuming a real return of 5% instead of 2.5%, implying a nominal return of 7.1% instead of 4.5% for a 2% inflation rate) (SA 3), lower fees on assets (halved) (SA 4), a lump sum at age 65 (instead of a programmed withdrawal) (SA 5). Panel A shows the evolution of assets in the different cases. Panel B shows the cumulative share of investment income over all inflows at different times after the introduction of the pension plan.
Multiple factors can influence the volume of inflows and outflows of pension plans. These factors are those relating to the design of the pension system; demographic, labour, macro and financial factors; and cognitive and behavioural factors (Figure 1.9). The first two groups of factors have an impact on the flows and on the accumulation of assets at the national level and affect all individuals collectively. For example, policymakers can choose to set a mandatory contribution rate when they design the pension system. This contribution rate will determine how much individuals or employers contribute. Financial factors, such as developments in financial markets, affect the amount of investment income that members can earn. Cognitive and behavioural factors affect how individuals save, which in turn affects assets at the national level.
While policymakers decide on a number of parameters (e.g. contribution rates, fees) when they design the pension system, they can make policy changes and adjust some of these parameters later on. For example, they may decide to increase contribution rates. Policy changes can impact the flows of pension plans and the growth of assets, evolving in line with the new parameters (Figure 1.10, Panel A). Policy changes can also affect the share that investment income plays in financing asset-backed pensions, at least temporarily until a whole generation of retirees has a full accumulation period under the new rules (Figure 1.10, Panel B). The effect of a policy change on the role of investment income over the longer term depends on whether the policy change led to different investment returns, fee levels or investment horizon.
The structure of the population also affects inflows to and outflows from asset-backed pensions, and thereby the amount of pension assets. Inflows depend on the number of people contributing, while outflows depend on the number of beneficiaries. A shift in the balance between savers and retirees would change the relative size of the flows. For example, a reduction in the number of people entering the labour market would lead to lower levels of contributions flowing into asset-backed pensions, all else being equal. Investment income would also be lower assuming constant returns, and so would total pension assets. Equally, as the number of people in retirement grows relative to those saving for retirement, outflows relative to inflows will grow, affecting negatively the growth of pension assets.
Note: This figure illustrates how pension assets may evolve at the national level following the introduction of a DC plan with the same assumptions as in the baseline during the first 79 years. A policy change in year 80 increases contribution levels by 50% (through an increase in contribution rates by 50%) (as in the sensitivity analysis 2 before). Panel A shows the annual inflows (contributions and investment income), outflows (benefits and fees) (on the left-hand side) and accumulated assets as a percentage of GDP (on the right-hand side) at the national level from the introduction of the DC plan and following the pension reform. Panel B shows the split of total cumulative inflows of the DC plan between contributions and investment income, from the introduction of the DC plan and following the policy change.
1.2.3. Evolution of assets in public pension reserve funds
Some public pension systems also build up assets in public pension reserve funds. Inflows into these funds often result from an excess of contributions over benefit payments from a pay-as-you-go pension plan, or from other sources, such as revenues from privatisation or general taxation (OECD, 2021[3]). These inflows can generate an investment income when they are invested in financial markets, and benefit from the effect of compound interest. The payout depends on the trigger that jurisdictions have set up, such as reaching a certain deficit in the pay-as-you-go pension system.
Factors affecting the evolution of assets in public pension reserve funds are also linked to the design of the pension system (e.g. introduction date, source of financing, type of payouts) and socio‑economic, demographic and financial factors (e.g. demographic trends, GDP growth, financial market developments).
To complete the understanding of how pension assets grow, the following sections focus on the evolution over time of contributions, investment income and pension benefit payments. This provides a sense of the respective sizes of these inflows and outflows and may help to assess the potential future evolution of pension assets and the different flows.
Contributions to pension plans have grown in 2025 and over the last decades in most of the 53 jurisdictions examined, including 25 OECD countries. Their growth partly explains the increase in pension assets that most jurisdictions recorded. Some jurisdictions experienced a fall in contributions in 2025 despite positive growth on average over the long term (Figure 1.11). Spain, on the contrary, experienced a decline in contributions over the long term, but this long-term trend may be reversing as contributions to pension funds increased in 2023 (by 9%), 2024 (10.9%) and 2025 (3.3%).
In per cent
Note: This figure shows the growth rate of contributions in 2025 and the geometric average annual growth rate (expressed in local current prices) over the longest period possible (since 2001, 2005 or 2010 depending on data availability).
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
Contributions to asset-backed pension plans may grow when more individuals have access to, participate in, and make contributions to these plans, or when individuals pay higher contributions.
1.3.1. Access
More individuals have access to pension plans when the working-age and employed populations increase, when new asset-backed pension plans are introduced, or when the rules to enrol individuals into existing plans become more flexible and allow more people to participate.
The number of working-age individuals who may be able to access an asset-backed pension plan has increased in the last decades. The working-age population (i.e. the number of people aged 15 to 64) has increased from 816 million in 2005 to 884 million in 2024 in the OECD (OECD, 2026[4]). Around two‑thirds of OECD countries experienced an increase in the number of people aged 15 to 64 since early 2000s, expanding the base of people who may be able to join and contribute to a pension plan. Some of the strongest increases since the early 2000s occurred in Australia (by 39%), Iceland (42%), Israel (47%) and Luxembourg (55%). By contrast, other jurisdictions where the number of people aged 15 to 64 has shrunk have seen their base of potential plan members erode, which can slow the growth in contributions. These jurisdictions have low fertility rates (e.g. Japan) or negative net migration rates, with more people moving out than in the country (e.g. in the Baltics and several Central and Eastern European countries) (World Bank, 2026[5]).
Increasing employment and reducing unemployment can allow a larger proportion of the working-age population to access a pension plan through work. Unemployment rates have been fluctuating since the early 2000s, rising during the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID‑19 pandemic, but returning to lower levels after these shocks and remaining relatively stable overall since 2022 (OECD, 2026[6]). Trends in 2025 varied across countries, and in around half of OECD countries unemployment increased between December 2024 and December 2025 while in the other half it was stable or declined. The increase in unemployment rates in 2025 may have hampered the growth of contributions in these countries, while the decline in others may have enabled more people to have access to a plan through work, supporting the growth in contributions.
Many jurisdictions have also facilitated access to pension plans. Some have enhanced access by introducing new plans, relaxing eligibility criteria to access existing plans, or reducing barriers for employers to offer a plan (Table 1.1). Some jurisdictions have designed plans tailored to specific subgroups (e.g. Kenya). The broadening of the base of people able to access a pension plan can thereby support the growth in contributions if individuals join the plan and contribute.
Note: The list is not exhaustive of all the policies implemented nor of all the jurisdictions that have implemented the listed policies.
1.3.2. Participation
Contributions would increase when more individuals participate in an asset-backed pension plan. Policymakers can either mandate employers or individuals to participate in a plan, require employers or a public institution to enrol individuals automatically in a plan, or let individuals choose to opt into plans they have access to.
Participation in a plan has increased in many jurisdictions, especially where participation has become mandatory or individuals have been automatically enrolled. For example, the participation rate of the working-age population increased by more than 40 percentage points (p.p.) in Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Israel and New Zealand, which have all mandated participation in a pension plan or introduced automatic enrolment since the early 2000s (Figure 1.12).6 In Iceland, the Netherlands and Sweden, participation rates have remained relatively constant over the past 10 to 20 years as participation in a plan was already widespread at the beginning of the period. While automatic enrolment programmes have led to a surge in participation in New Zealand and in the United Kingdom for employees, the success of the programmes has been more moderate so far in Italy, Poland and Türkiye for country-specific reasons. The participation rate in voluntary plans has generally remained relatively stable (e.g. Canada), with some exceptions (e.g. Hungary). In Hungary, the participation rate in pension funds dropped following a pension reform in 2010/11, which suspended payments to mandatory individual schemes and gave the option to members to redirect their assets to the pay-as-you-go public pension system. In Hong Kong (China), the fall in participation in ORSO schemes could be due to more employers choosing to switch to offer Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) schemes introduced in 2000.
As a percentage of the working-age population
Note: Jurisdictions that have several types of pension plans (e.g. mandatory workplace pension plans and voluntary personal plans) are shown in several charts when data are available. The first (respectively last) year varies across jurisdictions. The time series of participation rates is available by jurisdiction and type of plan in the statistical annex.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
Apart from automatic enrolment and compulsion, policymakers have implemented other measures to foster participation in pension plans. These include offering financial incentives or engaging in communication campaigns and financial education programmes (Table 1.2). France has raised participation in pension plans with a pension reform (part of the Loi Pacte), which simplified the offer of pension plans with three main types of products (called PER) (DREES, 2022[7]), supported with financial incentives. The Slovak Republic has also seen an increase in the participation of voluntary personal pension plans, which the Central Bank has supported through financial education initiatives (5 peňazí) (NBS, n.d.[8]). Communication campaigns and financial education can contribute to getting people to engage with planning for their retirement and seek financial advice if needed (Chapter 4).
Note: The list is not exhaustive of all the policies implemented nor of all the jurisdictions that have implemented the listed policies. Chile introduced a law in 2019 requiring self-employed individuals issuing invoices for services to pay pension contributions. Automatic enrolment in Canada is specific to a type of pension plans (pooled registered pension plans). The SECURE Act 2.0 in the United States requires employers opening new 401(k) plans to automatically enrol eligible employees (since 2025). The SECURE Act 2.0 also allows smaller employers to join existing plans.
1.3.3. Contributions
Contributions that people make to their asset-backed pension plans can increase when wages increase, when mandatory contribution rates increase or when people make additional voluntary contributions.
The increase in nominal wages has probably been a supporting factor behind the growth of contributions. Nominal wages have grown in all OECD countries since the early 2000s (OECD, 2026[9]). Growth has been relatively moderate in Japan, while it has been among the strongest in the Baltics (8% on average per year in Estonia and Lithuania, and 9% in Latvia since 2001). The increase in wages leads to an increase in nominal contributions levied on salary, all else being equal.
The evolution of mandatory and minimum contribution rates has also played a role in the growth of contributions. Contribution rates have increased in several countries, such as Australia, Iceland and the United Kingdom (Figure 1.13). Australia and Iceland increased employers’ mandatory contributions. Iceland also increased employees’ mandatory contributions. Iceland recorded one of strongest increases in contribution rates over the last two decades, from 10% in 2006 to 15.5% in 2025, which probably explains why it has had a relatively strong growth rate of contributions over the period (9.9% per year on average, Figure 1.11). By contrast, mandatory and minimum contribution rates have remained stable in other jurisdictions (e.g. Armenia, Croatia, Hong Kong (China), Kazakhstan)7 or have fluctuated (e.g. Latvia, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic).8 Some of these fluctuations were in times of crises (e.g. financial crisis, COVID‑19). The recent decline in the contribution rate in the Slovak Republic (from 5.5% in 2023 to 4% in 2024 and 2025) may partly explain the relative lower increase in contributions in 2025 (2.5%) compared to the annual average growth rate of contributions over the long term (Figure 1.11).
Note: In Chile, a pension reform introduced a new employer pension contribution from August 2025, starting at 1% of salary and scheduled to increase. A portion went to the individual accounts (0.1% of salary) in the second half of 2025. The contribution rates for Costa Rica refer to the mandatory complementary pension scheme (ROP). The contribution rates for Hong Kong (China) refer to the MPF system. The contribution rates for Korea refer to occupational DC plans. In Romania, the contribution rate to the second pillar was recalculated in 2018 in a way to keep the contribution level constant in nominal terms, resulting in a contribution rate of 3.75%. The contribution rates for Uganda refer to the NSSF.
Voluntary contributions to pension plans can also influence the overall level of contributions. For example, the overall 27% increase in contributions to pension plans in Portugal in 2025 (Figure 1.11) reflects growing contributions to personal pension plans used as long-term investment vehicles with a comparatively favourable tax treatment. While policymakers can use financial incentives to nudge people to save for retirement, they can also encourage people to save by making it easier for people to make voluntary contributions (Table 1.3). Policymakers can harness digital tools, for instance by enabling people to make contributions directly from their smartphone. For example, the pension supervisor in Mexico developed an app (AforeMóvil) launched in 2017 for individuals to open a plan, check their savings and make voluntary contributions (IOPS, 2018[10]).
Note: The list is not exhaustive of all the policies implemented nor of all the jurisdictions that have implemented the listed policies. Chapter 2 provides and discusses a broader range of policies.
1.3.4. Inflows into public pension reserve funds
Different rules may trigger inflows into public pension reserve funds. Public pension reserve funds are financed in many cases from the surpluses of contributions over benefits paid from public pension schemes (e.g. Japan’s GPIF, Korea’s NPF, the United States OASI Trust Fund). Public pension reserve funds may also receive revenues from privatisation (e.g. Australia’s Future Fund), money from general taxation (e.g. New Zealand Superannuation Fund) or fiscal transfers (e.g. Chile’s Pension Reserve Fund) (OECD, 2021[3]).
These different rules to finance public pension reserve funds may explain some of the differences in the inflows they receive across countries. For example, inflows to France’s FRR (apart from investment income) have stopped since 2010. In Chile, the reserve fund received no inflows in 2025. In many countries where reserves are financed by the surpluses of contributions over benefit payments, this excess will depend on many parameters, such as the contribution rate to the public pension scheme, the formula behind benefit payments and the demographic structure of the population. The inflows to the United States’ OASI Trust Fund have declined over the years relative to the size of the economy, from 4.9% of GDP in 2001 to 4.1% in 2025. In Spain, the reserve fund reached its lowest level in 2020 and 2021, but Spain has recently replenished it, accounting for the recent growth in inflows.
The income that the investment of pension contributions generates also influences the evolution of pension assets. Pension plans invest the contributions they receive and earn a return. Investment income grows with positive rates of return and provides an additional source of financing of asset-backed pensions. Investment performance depends on the asset allocation of the portfolio and the evolution of financial markets.
1.4.1. Pension providers recorded positive investment rates of return in 2025
Pension providers exhibited positive rate of returns in most jurisdictions in 2025, contributing to the growth of assets in 2025. For the third year in a row, pension providers recorded widespread investment gains, spurred by the robust performance of global equities in 2025. The MSCI World index gained around 20% in 2025, a performance close to 2023 and 2024 (MSCI, 2026[11]). As a result, in 2025 pension providers in most jurisdictions exhibited an investment rate of return, net of investment expenses, above the long-term average (Figure 1.14). Few jurisdictions in the OECD recorded negative real investment returns, net of investment expenses, in 2025, such as the Netherlands at ‑5.4%. Weaker performance could be due to losses on bond holdings following the rise in yields of some long-term government bonds and to foreign exchange losses on USD denominated holdings, given the depreciation of the US dollar against major other currencies in 2025. Investment returns were positive in nominal terms in all jurisdictions but the Netherlands (‑2.8%).
In per cent
Note: The average real annual rate of return of pension providers over the last 10 years is not shown for Zimbabwe (‑49.2%) for readability purposes. The annual investment rates of return and more country-specific notes are available in the statistical annex of this chapter.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
Over the long term, pension providers in most jurisdictions have achieved positive average investment returns, net of investment expenses. The investment rate of return, net of investment expenses, was positive in nominal terms in all jurisdictions over the last 20 years. In real terms, it was positive in most reporting jurisdictions except in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic (hereafter “Czechia”), Estonia, Latvia and Türkiye. Returns were positive despite volatility and years of weaker investment performance (e.g. 2008 and 2022, periods of headwinds in stock and bond markets (OECD, 2023[12])).
Investment expenses reduce the overall income that pension plans earn. Investment expenses include the costs arising from investment management, such as investment management fees paid to external asset managers and custodian fees. Members of DC pension plans may be charged other fees that further reduce flows into pension plans (Box 1.1), slowing down asset accumulation.
Running DC pension plans generates operating costs for pension providers, which they can cover by charging fees to plan members. Fees may be charged on contributions, assets or investment income. Many jurisdictions allow pension providers to charge fees only on assets, but other fee structures exist such as fees charged on contributions only or fees charged on assets and performance. Fees reduce the amount of pension assets, and thereby future investment income as well, as lower assets provide lower investment income for a given investment return all else being equal.
As a percentage of total assets
Note: Data for Australia refer to fees charged by entities with more than four/six members. For Colombia, severance fund management fees are not included. Data for Costa Rica refer to the mandatory complementary pension scheme (ROP). Data for the Dominican Republic and Mexico refer to personal pension plans. Data for Hungary refer to voluntary private pension funds. Data for Poland refer to open pension funds only. Data for Spain refer to personal pension funds.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
Most jurisdictions cap fees that pension providers can charge. While the cap varies across jurisdictions, some have reduced the cap, sometimes changing the methodology used to calculate it (e.g. Mexico, Romania). Some countries have used other tools to try to reduce fees charged. For example, the Australian pension supervisor has developed a “Comprehensive Product Performance Package” (CPPP), bringing together its superannuation performance test and its heatmaps looking at fees and performance, to encourage trustees to enhance members’ outcomes and to increase transparency. Chile and New Zealand have auction mechanisms to assign eligible people to the winning provider. These auctions are based on fees (along other factors in New Zealand), with a view to keeping fees in check or improve value for money.
Fees that members pay tend to have declined in recent years. Fees expressed as a percentage of assets were lower in 2025 than in 2018 in most jurisdictions (Table 1.4). This decline may allow pension plans to reach higher levels of accumulated assets over the long term.
1.4.2. The asset allocation of pension providers partially explains differences in investment performance
The investment performance of pension providers depends on how pension assets are invested. Jurisdictions that held the largest amount of pension assets in equities in 2025 benefitted the most from the positive developments in equity markets in 2025. This includes Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and the Slovak Republic, where pension providers held more than 70% of assets in equities at end-2025 (Figure 1.15). Poland achieved a stronger investment rate of return (30.7%) than others, as open pension funds in the country invest primarily domestically, while pension providers in other countries may have recorded lower gains in local currency from their USD-denominated equities given the depreciation of the dollar.
Bonds and equities generally represent the largest holdings of pension providers, but the mix varies across jurisdictions. Bonds and equities account for more than 50% of the investment of pension providers in 71 out of 81 reporting jurisdictions at end-2025. While pension providers invest mostly in equities in some jurisdictions (e.g. Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Baltics), bonds represent the largest holding of pension providers in several others (e.g. Albania, Czechia). The high proportion of bond holdings may be due to a lack of domestic opportunities, the preference or need for a fixed guaranteed income, or investment rules.
For instance, the lack or underdevelopment of local capital markets may contribute to the large proportion of assets in public debt in some Latin American countries (e.g. Costa Rica, Dominican Republic and Uruguay) (Mesa-Lago, 2020[13]). In some other countries, pension providers may seek a guaranteed stream of income, such as in Czechia where transformed pension funds invest in bills and bonds to fulfil the promise of an annual non-negative nominal guarantee to their members. Investment rules may also require pension providers to hold a minimum proportion of their assets in bonds, such as in Morocco for the pension fund for private sector employees (at least 35%) and in Indonesia for voluntary and mandatory pension funds (30% or 50% depending on the fund).
As a percentage of total investment
Note: Data on asset allocation include both direct investment in equities, bills and bonds, cash and deposits, and indirect investment through Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) when the look-through of CIS investments is available. Otherwise, investments in CIS are shown in a separate category. Negative values have been excluded from the calculations of the asset allocation.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
Given their traditional exposure to bonds and equities, developments in bond and equity markets have generally driven the investment performance of pension providers over the years. Pension providers have held over 60% of assets in bonds and equities on average among the reporting jurisdictions since the early 2000s although the proportion varies across jurisdictions and years (Figure 1.16). Given their exposure to bonds and equities, pension providers in many jurisdictions recorded investment losses in 2008, as a result of falling stock markets, and in 2022, when both equity valuations and bond prices fell simultaneously. By contrast, global equity markets have recorded strong performances since 2023, with global indices growing around 20% or more three years in a row (MSCI, 2026[14]), positively impacting pension providers investing in equities.
As a percentage of total investment
Note: The average allocations of pension plan assets have been calculated over 14 jurisdictions: Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia (from 2003 onwards), Sweden and the United States among OECD countries; and Bulgaria, Hong Kong (China) (from 2002 onwards) and Peru among other jurisdictions. The whole time series of the asset allocation in all 14 jurisdictions is available in the statistical annex.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
The asset mix of pension providers has evolved over time, with an increased exposure to equities in several jurisdictions, especially since 2008. For example, the proportion of assets invested in equities increased in Colombia, Estonia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland and the Slovak Republic.9 Policymakers have encouraged further diversification of assets through different policies, such as by loosening investment regulations, introducing life‑cycle strategies – where younger workers invest in riskier assets – and making default investment strategies less conservative (Table 1.5). For example, in the Slovak Republic, the proportion of assets invested in equities soared in 2024 with the introduction of a default life‑cycle investment strategy that has high equity exposure until late ages. Well-designed default investment strategies can make individuals take on more investment risk and address the problem of limited access to financial advice (Chapter 4).
Note: This table gives examples of policies to bolster long-term investment rates of return and examples of jurisdictions that have implemented these policies. The lists of policies and jurisdictions are not exhaustive.
1.4.3. Investment performance and asset allocation of public pension reserve funds
Public pension reserve funds achieved a positive investment performance in 2025 and over the longer term. Most of them posted positive real investment rates of return in 2025, with the strongest returns in Korea (16.1%), Japan (14.8%) and New Zealand (11%) (Figure 1.17, Panel A). The investment performance of public pension reserve funds was strong in 2025 and positive in most jurisdictions over the last 10 years and in all of them over the last 20 years.
In per cent
Note: Data refer to the following reserve funds as follows: Australia – Future Fund; Canada (in Panel B) – CPP Reserve Fund; Chile – Pension Reserve Fund; Costa Rica – Costa Rican Social Security Fund; Finland – Keva, VER and other funds combined (in Panel B); France – FRR (Fonds de Réserves pour les Retraites) (in Panel A); Japan – Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF); Korea – National Pension Fund; Luxembourg – FDC (Fonds de Compensation); Mexico – Labour Fund; New Zealand – New Zealand Superannuation Fund; Norway – Government Pension Fund – Norway (GPFN); Poland – Demographic Reserve Fund; Portugal – Social Security Financial Stabilisation Fund (FEFSS); Spain – Social Security Reserve Fund; Switzerland – AHV Central Compensation Fund; United States – Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics and websites of public pension reserve funds.
Public pension reserve funds with significant equity exposure benefitted from the positive developments in equity markets in 2025. Public pension reserve funds in Korea, Japan and New Zealand, which recorded the strongest returns in 2025, had 50% or more of their assets allocated in equities (Figure 1.17, Panel B). These reserve funds have increased their exposure to equities over time (Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, 2026[15]; NPS, 2025[16]; GPIF, 2025[17]). By contrast, public pension reserve funds in Portugal, Spain and the United States have a relatively lower or no exposure to equities, and a higher exposure to bonds, which yielded a lower investment income in 2025.
Pension benefit payments also influence the evolution of pension assets over time. Outflows that reduce the amount of pension assets include pension benefit payments, early access to retirement savings, and payments to support pay-as-you-go pension plans in the case of public pension reserve funds.
1.5.1. Pension benefit payments
As more people reach retirement age, pension benefit payments have grown in all but one reporting jurisdiction since the early 2000s (Figure 1.18, Panel A). Benefit payments are still relatively low in many jurisdictions, and any variation may look large given the low starting point (e.g. Kazakhstan, Romania, Czechia and Lithuania). The decline in Czechia in 2025 was a return to normal after larger lump sum payments to entitled beneficiaries in 2023 and 2024 in anticipation of announced legislative changes. In Lithuania, the decline in payments in 2025 may be due to retirees postponing exit from the plan until the planned increase to the threshold for lump sum payments applies in 2026.
Note: * 49 jurisdictions: Albania, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czechia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Kosovo, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau (China), Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, North Macedonia, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname, Thailand, Türkiye, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
The level of benefit payments varies across jurisdictions, depending on the introduction date of pension plans and the participation of the population. Benefits are still relatively low in many countries where asset-backed pension plans were introduced recently (Figure 1.18, Panel B). By contrast, benefit payments are the largest in countries with plans established for a long time. This is the case of Iceland (7%), Canada (5.3%), Australia (5.6%) and the Netherlands (4.9%), where plans have been in place for a long time and where a significant proportion of the population participates in those plans for part of their working life.
Old-age pension benefits are the main type of pension benefits paid in most countries. Pension plans may provide different types of benefits to members, with old-age benefit payments larger than disability pensions and survivor benefits in most jurisdictions (Figure 1.19, Panel A).
Note: Lump sums are one‑off payments. Fixed-term payments include programmed withdrawals and temporary income (fixed or variable) payments over a pre‑defined period (e.g. fixed-term annuities). Lifetime pensions are lifelong payments until the death of the members (e.g. annuities paid by insurance companies, lifelong pensions paid by pension funds). Data for Japan cover occupational DB plans (for the fiscal year 2023), occupational DC and personal plans.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
Old-age benefits may be paid as a lump sum, fixed-term payments or lifetime pensions. Lump sum payments are the main form of payments by pension providers in several jurisdictions, such as Australia (55% of benefits paid) and Belgium (close to 100%) (Figure 1.19, Panel B). In other jurisdictions, a significant share of benefits is paid as lifelong payments (e.g. Chile, the Netherlands, Norway, Kazakhstan) or fixed-term payments (e.g. Maldives).
The level of benefits paid in different forms across jurisdictions may reflect differences in the payout options allowed, the eligibility criteria to meet for a certain form of payment, and members’ own preferences. For example, lump sum payments are discouraged in Chile, the Netherlands and Norway.10 Some jurisdictions only allow one form of payout, such as Finland, Latvia and the Netherlands for example, where members can only receive a lifetime income from their assets accumulated in workplace pension plans. When jurisdictions allow several forms of payouts, they may set eligibility criteria for members to receive a particular form of payment. For example, members can take a lump sum payment in Austria only if their pension fund assets are below a certain threshold. Mexico adjusted the eligibility criteria for a pension in 2021, reducing the number of weeks of contributions required, and has since progressively raised the criteria again. When members can choose, they may prefer an option over others. In Australia, retirees choosing a lump sum tend to have low balances (The Australian Government the Treasury, 2020[18]).
The form of payment has an impact on the overall amount of pension assets. Lump sum payments lead to an immediate outflow from the system, unless retirees decide to purchase an annuity product on their own with the lump sum payment. By contrast, assets can stay in the asset-backed pension system for longer, remain invested and earn investment income with other forms of payouts such as programmed withdrawals or lifelong payments. However, the entity in charge of managing assets after retirement and paying regular payments may be different to the one in charge of managing assets in the accumulation phase. For example, assets may be transferred to a life insurance company when members choose an annuity (e.g. in Chile). In Lithuania, a centralised annuity provider is in charge of paying benefits from the second pension pillar. Assets may stay with the same pension providers, but pension providers may have a dedicated fund for programmed withdrawals (e.g. programmed withdrawal fund within AFPs in Colombia). In some jurisdictions, people can choose to transfer their assets to the public pay‑as-you-go system that will be in charge of turning these assets into a stream of payments (e.g. in Croatia, Latvia).11 When assets are transferred to the public pay-as-you-go system, assets move out from the asset-backed pension system (as in the case of a lump sum payment), preventing assets from generating investment income to finance pensions during the retirement phase, thereby reducing the potential of achieving higher levels of assets.
1.5.2. Payments before retirement
Individuals may receive payments from their pension plans before retirement in the form of early withdrawals. Payments from pension plans before retirement include early withdrawals, transfers of assets to other pension plans when individuals change jobs, and transfers when funds wind up before retirement. Early withdrawal payments are the ones that have a direct impact on flows out of pension assets.
Many jurisdictions allow members to access their savings before retirement, but generally under certain conditions. The OECD Recommendation of the Council for the Good Design of Defined Contribution Pension Plans [OECD-LEGAL-0467] calls for early access to retirement savings to be permitted only as a measure of last resort and based on individuals’ specific hardship circumstances. Yet, the conditions to access savings vary widely across jurisdictions. Several jurisdictions commonly allow members to access their savings for medical reasons or in the case of serious illness. Other conditions include housing, education, financial hardship or unemployment. There may be more flexibility to access voluntary savings than mandatory savings for which the target may be to provide significant retirement benefits. This is the case in Croatia, where individuals are forbidden to access their mandatory savings, but can access their voluntary savings to some extent. Likewise, early access is possible in Bulgaria only for savings in voluntary pension funds.
The extent to which members access their savings before retirement varies across jurisdictions. While withdrawals in 2025 were minimal relative to the size of pension assets in Chile and Costa Rica (less than 0.1% of assets at end-2025), withdrawals were more substantial in some other countries, such as Portugal (3%), Kazakhstan (5.1%) and Zambia (6.9%) (Figure 1.20). Members withdrew savings mainly for housing purposes in Kazakhstan and New Zealand, and for unemployment or financial hardship in Nigeria, Macau (China) and Malawi. In Hong Kong (China), the largest amounts of assets withdrawn early were done by members leaving the jurisdiction, including cases of non-local employees who have completed their employment in Hong Kong (China) and returned to their original places of residence.
As a percentage of assets at end-2025
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
The larger early withdrawals from the plan are, the more they could hamper asset accumulation. For example, in Peru, members have been allowed to access their savings unconditionally multiple times following the COVID‑19 outbreak. This has led to a large amount of assets being withdrawn by more than 7 million members, most of the members,12 accounting for the decline in pension assets at the national level (from 22.5% of GDP at end-2020 to 9.5% at end-2025). Early withdrawals reduce the amount of assets that can be ultimately accumulated by more than the amount of assets withdrawn, because the amounts withdrawn no longer generate an investment income. Early withdrawals also shorten the horizon for assets to earn investment income and limit the effect of compound interest.
Yet, the option of accessing savings – in the context of voluntary systems – may give an incentive for people reluctant to lock their savings until retirement to start saving. The effect of early access to savings on assets is therefore not straightforward, especially in voluntary systems.
1.5.3. Outflows from public pension reserve funds
Outflows from public pension reserve funds depend on the conditions established in their mandate. It may be a date by which payments can start (Australia’s Future Fund) or until which they cannot start (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) (OECD, 2021[3]). The trigger may be when payments due to retirees in pay-as-you-go pension plans exceed inflows from current contributors.
Outflows in 2025 continued to grow for some public pension reserve funds. For example, payments from public pension reserve funds grew by 10% in Chile, by more than 5% in Sweden, and by 9% in the United States. In all three countries, outflows exceeded inflows in 2025. In Sweden, payments from the AP Funds exceeded inflows for the seventh consecutive year (AP2, 2026[19]). In the United States, outflows have been exceeding inflows since 2021.
Pension assets managed by pension providers have been growing since the early 2000s, with assets totalling USD 70.4 trillion or 95.7% of GDP in the OECD area. Assets have been increasing in nearly all jurisdictions examined. The analysis of the main factors behind the evolution of pension assets can help identify situations that may lead jurisdictions to see pension asset increase, remain stable or decline.
The growth of pension assets is the result of increasing contributions, positive investment returns and lower benefit payments than the combination of contributions and returns. Increased participation in asset-backed pension plans, higher nominal wages and, in some jurisdictions, higher contribution rates drive the growth in contributions. Pension providers have generated positive investment income in nominal terms in all jurisdictions over the long term by investing these retirement savings. Pension benefit payments have grown over time but remain lower than the inflows as asset-backed pensions in most jurisdictions are still maturing (i.e. they were introduced recently, and most people have not had an entire career saving in those plans with the same rules over time). Benefit payments are larger in countries where plans have been established for longer, participation is widespread, contribution rates are large, and most people retiring have been in the system with the same rules for their entire career.
Therefore, the evolution of pension assets in each jurisdiction depends on when the asset-backed pension system was introduced and what policy reforms have been put in place to influence participation, contributions, investment and benefit payments. It also depends on the number of people reaching retirement and getting pension benefit payments, as well as on shifts in the population structure due, for example, to population ageing.
Jurisdictions that have recently introduced asset-backed pensions, as well as those that have introduced measures to increase participation, raise contribution rates and move to less conservative investment strategies, may see their pension assets continue to grow. These measures include the introduction of automatic enrolment in Ireland (that started in 2026), the upgrade of the automatic enrolment programme in Italy, facilitated access to a personal pension plan in the United States (Benefits Canada, 2026[20]), the ongoing increase in default contribution rates in KiwiSaver plans in New Zealand, the ongoing increase of mandatory contributions in Chile and Mexico, new rules to improve returns in Norway and Finland,13 and the introduction of a new personal pension product in Germany (European Pensions, 2026[21]).
In jurisdictions that have taken measures that can adversely affect the growth of assets, the future evolution of pension assets is more uncertain. For example, policies that allow unconditional early access to retirement savings or that allow individuals to reduce their contribution rates would negatively affect asset growth.
Jurisdictions where participation, contribution rates, and pension asset allocations have been stable for a relatively long time may see pension assets grow moderately or stabilise. These jurisdictions may be close to having mature systems where retirees receive benefits from assets that they have had the opportunity to accumulate during their entire career under relatively stable plan rules. The growth of assets would mainly depend on the investment performance of pension plans.
Shifts in the population structure because of population ageing are likely to affect flows into and out of asset-backed pension plans. A decline in the size of cohorts entering the labour market would reduce the size of the working-age population, reducing the volume of contributions flowing into pension plans, all else being equal. Relatively larger cohorts of individuals retiring and living longer would increase the volume of pension benefit payments and reduce the growth in pension assets. Therefore, countries could see lower growth in pension assets because of population ageing, and those with already mature asset-backed pension systems could even experience negative growth, depending on investment income.
The reserves that public pension schemes have set to meet their obligations are likely to follow different paths. All public pension reserve funds invest the reserves and earn an investment income, which benefits from the effect of compound interest. This effect is stronger with higher investment rates of return and longer investment horizons. However, the investment horizon depends on the time horizon before depletion, and this differs across public pension reserve funds. Some of the reserves are not intended to be depleted at any time as their mission is to provide a permanent smoothing mechanism between inflows and outflows of the public pension system, and in some cases to provide a share of the finances (e.g. Canada’s CPPIB). In other cases, the reserves are expected to be depleted at some point but are still in an expansion phase where assets continue to grow (e.g. Korea’s National Pension Fund). These reserve funds have not yet reached the peak of assets they can expect to have. There are also reserve funds where outflows already exceed inflows (including investment income) and will be depleted soon (e.g. US OASI Trust Fund). Spain had its reserve fund reaching its lowest level in 2020 and 2021 but refunded it recently. The evolution of assets in public pension reserve funds therefore depends on policy choices made on their funding and role.
References
[19] AP2 (2026), Annual Report 2025, https://ap2.se/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Annual-Report-2025.pdf.
[22] Asset Management Association (2025), The 3rd contributor: A question of investment strategy, https://www.am-switzerland.ch/en/topics/retirement-provision-and-investment/the-3rd-contributor.
[1] Batsman, M. (2026), What is compound interest?, https://www.pensionbee.com/uk/blog/what-is-compound-interest.
[20] Benefits Canada (2026), U.S. executive order aims to help more people get retirement savings plans, https://www.benefitscanada.com/pensions/cap/u-s-federal-executive-order-aims-to-help-more-people-get-retirement-savings-plans.
[7] DREES (2022), Les retraités et les retraites – édition 2022, https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/publications-communique-de-presse-documents-de-reference/panoramas-de-la-drees/les-retraites-et-les.
[27] European Pensions (2026), Finnish pension reforms to come into force from 1 July, https://www.europeanpensions.net/ep/Finnish-pension-reforms-to-come-into-force-from-1-July.php.
[21] European Pensions (2026), German Bundestag adopts private pensions bill, https://www.europeanpensions.net/ep/German-Bundestag-adopts-private-pensions-bill.php.
[26] European Pensions (2026), Norway approves reforms to boost returns on guaranteed pension products, https://www.europeanpensions.net/ep/Norway-approves-reforms-to-boost-returns-on-guaranteed-pension-products.php.
[25] Government of the Republic of Croatia (n.d.), Pension Selection (Pension from the First Pillar or Pension from the First and the Second Pillar), https://gov.hr/en/pension-selection-pension-from-the-first-pillar-or-pension-from-the-first-and-the-second-pillar/2330.
[17] GPIF (2025), Annual Report Fiscal Year 2024, https://www.gpif.go.jp/en/performance/annual_report_fiscal_year_2024.pdf.
[15] Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation (2026), Annual Report 2025, https://nzsuperfund.nz/assets/NZ-Super-Fund-Annual-Report-2025_final-for-web.pdf.
[2] Hartmann, T. (n.d.), Learn how compound interest can help your money grow, https://sorted.org.nz/guides/saving-and-investing/learn-about-compound-interest/.
[10] IOPS (2018), Impact of the digitalisation of financial services on supervisory practices in the private pension sector, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/iops/en/working-papers/WP-33-Case-study-Mexico.pdf.
[23] Medaiskis, T. and T. Gudaitis (2013), “Assessing the impact of the second pillar component on old age pension in Lithuania”, Ekonomika, Vol. 92/4, https://doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2013.0.2344.
[13] Mesa-Lago, C. (2020), Evaluation of Four Decades of Pension Privatization in Latin America, 1980-2020: Promises and Reality.
[24] Mijnpensioenoverzicht.nl (2026), Withdraw a lump sum, https://www.mijnpensioenoverzicht.nl/en/mpo/mijn-overzicht/een-bedrag-ineens-opnemen.
[14] MSCI (2026), MSCI World Index (USD).
[11] MSCI (2026), MSCI World Index (USD) - Index Factsheet, https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/cad25553-6265-4a1b-9942-cb5be891015d.
[8] NBS (n.d.), 5 PEŇAZÍ, https://5penazi.sk/.
[16] NPS (2025), 2024 National Pension Fund Report, https://fund.nps.or.kr/main.do.
[9] OECD (2026), Average annual wages, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/4te.
[6] OECD (2026), Statistics News Release - Unemployment, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/insights/statistical-releases/2026/2/unemployment-rates-oecd-02-2026.pdf.
[4] OECD (2026), Working-age population, https://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/50k.
[29] OECD (2025), Pensions at a Glance 2025: OECD and G20 Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e40274c1-en.
[12] OECD (2023), Pension Markets in Focus 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/28970baf-en.
[3] OECD (2021), Pension Markets in Focus 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a70e4160-en.
[28] OECD (2018), OECD Reviews of Pension Systems: Latvia, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264289390-en.
[18] The Australian Government the Treasury (2020), Retirement Income Review Final Report, https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2020-100554.
[5] World Bank (2026), Net migration - OECD members, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?locations=OE&most_recent_value_desc=false.
Pension authorities and other bodies provided the primary source material for this chapter, as part of the OECD/IOPS/ World Bank Global Pension Statistics (GPS) exercise. Data come from official administrative sources and are revised on an ongoing basis so as to better reflect the most recent figures for every past year. Some divergences may exist between national reporting standards and the compilation method of certain data for the GPS exercise. For this reason, data providers are regularly requested to provide methodological information relevant for developing a thorough understanding of their submission under the GPS framework. The following general methodological notes provide some explanations in this respect:
Conventional signs: “..” means not available. “|” means methodological break in series.
This chapter is mainly based on the answers of pension authorities and other bodies to an annual data request. Some statistics for some jurisdictions come from publicly available reports, databases or websites of other national or international organisations: Japan (Bank of Japan) and Switzerland (Federal Social Insurance Office’s publication Statistique des assurances sociales suisses for personal plans) among OECD countries; and Argentina (International Association of Pension Fund Supervisors (AIOS)), Bolivia (AIOS), China (Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (MOHRSS)), Croatia (website of the Croatian Financial Services Supervisory Agency (HANFA) before 2014), the Dominican Republic (AIOS before 2014), El Salvador (AIOS), India (annual reports of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation for Employees’ Provident Fund, Employees’ Pension Scheme and Employees’ Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme) and Panama (AIOS) among non-OECD jurisdictions.
Data on stock variables refer to the end of the year while data on flow variables are provided over the whole year in the chapter. The reference period is the calendar year, except for: Australia where the reference period is the financial year ending in June; India where the reference period ends in March of the following year for Employees’ Provident Fund, Employees’ Pension Scheme and Employees’ Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme; and New Zealand (until 2014). Data for New Zealand up to 2013 are based on a 31 March balance date for most of the schemes.
Slovenia adopted the euro in 2007, the Slovak Republic in 2009, Estonia in 2011, Latvia in 2014, Lithuania in 2015 and Croatia in 2023. The whole time series (in millions of national currency) are expressed in millions of euros for these countries (even before their adoption of the euro).
This chapter uses four main additional reference series: exchange rates to convert values in US dollars, GDP, the variation of the consumer price index (CPI) and population:
This chapter uses end-of-period exchange rates for all variables valued at the end of the year, and period-average rates for variables representing a flow over the year. These rates mainly come from the OECD Annual Purchasing Power Parities and Exchange Rates and the IMF Exchange rates databases.
GDP values come from the OECD Annual GDP and components database, the IMF World Economic Outlook released in April 2026 and other sources.
Consumer price indices are from the OECD Key short-term economic indicators database, the IMF Consumer Price Index database and other sources.
Data on population are from the OECD Working-age Population database and World Bank World Development Indicators.
← 1. The chapter uses data from the OECD Global Pension Statistics exercise that covers around 90 jurisdictions, including 38 OECD countries. It covers both pension providers and public pension reserve funds. Pension providers manage the assets that individuals accumulate by participating in a pension plan. Public pension reserve funds manage the reserves that public pension schemes set aside to support the financing of public pay-as-you-go pension arrangements.
← 2. This figure results from several assumptions. The individual starts working at the age of 22, earns an initial wage of 100, and retires at age 65. The wage grows at 3.275%, in line with productivity growth of 1.25% and 2% inflation. The individual contributes 10% of his/her wage during their career, with no spell of unemployment and no pause in contributions. The investments earn a nominal return of 4.5% annually, 2.5% in real terms. Fees of 1% are charged on assets every year during both the accumulation and decumulation phases. The individual takes a programmed withdrawal between age 65 and 84. These assumptions are similar to those in Chapter 4 of the OECD (2025[29]), except for the definition of a full career, the fee structure and the type of payout.
← 3. Investment income is sometimes called the “third contributor” to asset-backed pension plans, on top of employer and employee contributions (Asset Management Association, 2025[22]).
← 4. The aggregate volume of contributions to a newly introduced pension plan is constant from the beginning if the entire working-age population joins the plan from its introduction.
← 5. This figure results from several assumptions. People contribute from age 22 to 64 and receive benefits from age 65 to 84. There is the same number of people of each age. All people aged 22 to 64 contribute the same amount, totalling 5% of GDP across all individuals every year (corresponding to a mandatory 10% contribution rate for a labour share (i.e. wage over GDP) of 50%). They all earn a constant 4.5% nominal investment rate of return (i.e. 2.5% real return). Fees are charged on assets (1%) every year, including during the decumulation phase. Retirees receive fixed programmed withdrawals from age 65 to 84. GDP grows in line with nominal wages. The growth of the nominal wage is assumed to be 3.275%, in line with productivity growth (1.25%) and inflation (2%).
← 6. Armenia made it mandatory for workers born in 1974 or later to participate in a plan from 2014. Bulgaria reformed the whole pension system in 2000. Estonia introduced second pension pillar plans in 2002, in which participation was mandatory for those born in 1983 or later until 2021. Israel made it mandatory for all employees to participate in a pension plan in 2008. New Zealand phased in its automatic enrolment programme in the so-called “KiwiSaver” schemes in 2007.
← 7. The contribution rate to mandatory pension funds has remained stable in Armenia over the years but the share of employee contributions and the share financed by the state have changed. In Hong Kong (China), employees and employers have each been required to make mandatory contributions calculated at 5% of the employee’s relevant income to an MPF scheme, subject to a minimum and a maximum relevant income level. The minimum and maximum relevant income levels have been subject to adjustment over the years. In Kazakhstan, employers have been required to contribute to a new notional DC scheme since 1 January 2024: 1.5% of salary in 2024, 2.5% in 2025, with a planned increase to 5% by 2028.
← 8. In Latvia, the total contribution rate to the first and second pillars has remained the same throughout the period (20%). Only the split of contributions between the first and second pillars has changed. Lithuania is not included in Figure 1.13 but Medaiskis and Gudaitis (2013[23]) document changes between 2004 and 2013. The source of financing of contributions has also evolved over time in Lithuania.
← 10. Members in the Netherlands will be able to withdraw up to 10% of their pensions as a lump sum from 1 January 2029 (Mijnpensioenoverzicht.nl, 2026[24]).
← 11. See Government of the Republic of Croatia (n.d.[25]) (Croatia) and OECD (2018[28]) (Latvia).
← 12. In Peru, 10.3 million people were members of the asset-backed pension system in December 2025.
← 13. European Pensions (2026[26]) (Norway) and (2026[27]) (Finland).